Choice between protesting to the board of review & appealing directly to the TT; MCL 205.735a(3), (4), & (6); Effect of an untimely filing; WA Foote Mem’l Hosp v City of Jackson; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(6); Untimely motion for reconsideration; MI Admin Code, R 792.10257(1) & 792.10219(5); The court’s jurisdiction; Failure to timely file an appeal from the TT’s order of dismissal; MCR 7.204(A)(1)(a); Treating the appeal as one on application for leave to appeal; The non-profit charitable institution exemption (MCL 211.7o)

The court concluded that the TT did not err in dismissing petitioner-McLaren’s claim for the exemption under MCL 211.7o for the 2018 tax year, holding that “MCL 205.735a(4)(a) and (b) do not contemplate—much less permit—the course of action taken by McLaren” in seeking to challenge respondent-township’s decision as to 2018. Further, given that McLaren filed a petition as to the 2020 tax year after its 2019 petition and both actions involved “the same parties and the same claim in relation to the property’s 2019 status[,]” the TT did not err in dismissing the claim as to the 2019 tax year. Finally, it did not err in determining that McLaren’s motion for reconsideration was untimely. As an initial matter, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider McLaren’s appeal as of right because McLaren failed to timely file its claim of appeal. But the court granted leave to appeal in the interest of judicial economy. It rejected McLaren’s claim that the TT erred in dismissing its claim as to the 2018 tax year because it “was not required to protest the 2018 decision before the board of review.” Respondent denied McLaren’s request for the exemption for the 2018 tax year on 2/14/18. McLaren did not seek to challenge that decision before the board of review. Rather, it filed the 2019 petition in the TT, as “it was permitted to do under MCL 205.735a(4)(a) and (b). Importantly, however, McLaren did not file the 2019 petition until 20 months after the [2/14/18] decision.” The TT dismissed the portion of the 2019 petition as to the 2018 tax year based on a lack of jurisdiction. Then McLaren protested the 2/14/ 2018 decision before the board of review, and when this failed, it filed the 2020 petition. The court concluded that there was “no indication that the Legislature intended for a party to be able to create subject-matter jurisdiction where it did not previously exist by protesting an assessment before the board of review after the party’s petition had already been dismissed by the Tribunal because of the party’s failure to comply with the requirements contained in MCL 205.735a(6).” McLaren filed its 2020 petition over 22 months after respondent’s 2/14/18 decision. Thus, the TT lacked jurisdiction over the claim as to the 2018 tax year, and it “did not err by dismissing that portion of the 2020 petition.” Affirmed.